memory_betafandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:AdmiralYamakawa
Moved from Bradbury deletion :I hope you now see the merits of review over deleting on a whim. -- AdmiralYamakawa 01:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC) I have always seen the merits of our policy, Admiral -- although I had (and do have) a fear that maybe you don't fully understand it. I'm a little puzzled why you would infer with this comment that I wouldn't give an article a fair review... Above when I spoke of my "belief" that this ship was not derived from any source that is valid to this website, it was because I've done research on the Bradbury class, not over weeks as you said, but many years ago when I also participated in a forum which theorized what this design might look like (mine was a little different from Kenny's and based on a Rick Sternbach illustration). Unless Paramount published a new book yesterday that had an image, I stand by my research that no Bradbusry class ship has ever been shown. From now on, please remember that this site's policy should always be to put the source BEFORE the information -- or, more simply put, images without sources or policy approval can and will go to deletion immediately, not on a whim, but on rightful order of our policy. -- Captain MKB 01:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC) :And yet you with held that information which would have at least partly negated the need for potentially intensive research. Though in truth I would hesitate to trust such information from you as your history is one of action without thought research or reason. You tend to quote rules to others and yet you ignore those same rules when they apparently do not suit what you wish to do. -- AdmiralYamakawa 02:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC) I didn't withhold the information -- I stated it as my belief and you dismissed it, stating that you would prefer further research (which did in fact confirm what I knew). I must ask -- where do you get this characterization of me? My actions are in accordance with the rules. My job as admin is in fact to quote the rules -- especially if someone asks me to explain how the rules fit my actions. Unless you have a rule I've broken or an issue with me you wish to be addressed, I'd appreciate if you cease making statements that characterize me -- I find them a bit insulting, and, to quote a rule, that could qualify as a personal attack. Since you are a new user, I'm making a special effort to explain rules to you, but I get the sense you have a problem with me that is making you unwilling to accept the rules. Please, let's try to make the best of the fact that we are working together here and clear the air, Admiral. -- Captain MKB 04:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC) :I will not respond to you here after this comment. This discussion will be where others are more likely to read it. -- AdmiralYamakawa 06:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Like I said, conversation intended to belittle me in front of others could be construed as a personal attack -- unless there's a specific rule of conduct you feel I've broken, what would you need to say in a more public forum? Also, do you intend to edit articles on this site? All you've done is to disagree with me in a discussion -- what I'm asking is, do you have a purpose for this? Watch any Star Trek ever? -- Captain MKB 06:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Removed from Memory Beta:Pages for deletion/Image:Bradbury-01.jpg Please stop making off-topic comments on the archived deletion page -- those comments, not being related to the topic of that page, could be perceived as a violation of policy. Moved comments NO, not all of your actions are in accordance with the rules. Memory_Beta:Protection_policy#Protecting_pages Protecting pages In general, administrators should not protect pages which they have edited in the past (this includes discussing the article on the talk page). Administrator powers are not editor privileges — administrators are simply representatives of the community of contributors as a whole. If an administrator is involved with a page and wants that page protected, he should contact another administrator to do it for them. Because wiki pages are supposed to be open to everyone, it's best to leave pages protected for as short at time as possible. Talk pages should never be protected. 02:45, 20 January 2009 (hist) (diff) N Memory Beta talk:Log in before making drastic changes‎ (New page: Could I have a consensus of registered users here -- would this policy apply to an anonymous user who wished to create a new detailed index of starship classes in a new format we would not...) 02:46, 20 January 2009 (hist) (diff) m Memory Beta talk:Log in before making drastic changes‎ (Protected "Memory Beta talk:Log in before making drastic changes": vandal protection edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed (expires 02:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC))) 02:48, 20 January 2009 (hist) (diff) N Memory Beta talk:No personal attacks‎ (New page: Should this policy have a more detailed description of what constitutes a personal attack? Name calling, for example -- how much is too far? -- AdmiralYamakawa 06:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)) 02:48, 20 January 2009 (hist) (diff) m Memory Beta talk:No personal attacks‎ (Protected "Memory Beta talk:No personal attacks": vandal protection edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed (expires 02:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC))) 00:17, 21 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Memory Beta talk:Deletion policy‎ (note on turnng meaningless/futureless definition/list articles into redirects to like categories (re: starship classes) 00:18, 21 January 2009 (hist) (diff) m Memory Beta talk:Deletion policy‎ (Protected "Memory Beta talk:Deletion policy": vandal protection edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed (expires 00:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC))) (top) Memory_Beta:Protection_policy#List_of_protected_pages List of protected pages If you protect a page, or find a protected page not listed on Project:Protected page, please add it to the list. Please also add a short description of ten words or less indicating why you protected it. Memory Beta:Sign your posts on talk pages Because everyone is allowed to edit the talk pages, the discussions can sometimes get a little chaotic. It's important that everyone sign their posts on talk pages so that individual statements can be attributed to specific users. Signing your posts is easy: use three tildes (AdmiralYamakawa) to sign just your name, or four tildes (AdmiralYamakawa 06:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)) to sign your name PLUS the current date and time. Memory Beta:Be considerate to new members AdmiralYamakawa 06:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Protected pages I stand by my position portecting "Memory Beta project" pages -- these are administrative articles and do not relate to the rules about protecting articles. Since only registered users are allowed to influence policy, only registered users should be allowed to debate policy. -- Captain MKB 22:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Signing posts Again, welcome messages are administrative templates and are not considered "posts" that need to be "signed" -- Captain MKB 22:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Being considerate I've been very considerate to new members, even to the point of delaying banning them after they commit serious breaches of policy. I even unblocked a banned IP address to give the user a second chance. One banned IP i gave a shorter span to see if they wanted to return and contribute. Although, since the policy says to block these users, I should not be so lenient. If anything I've been TOO considerate. -- Captain MKB 22:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC) there were several comments that you have made that you did not sign, excluding the welcome templates - which I might add tend to be signed by other administrators when they post them. And you have a funny means of showing consideration, as so far you have done a great deal to hide what you do while continuing to do it. Even when I pointed these things in hopes that you would come to realize what you were doing and change for the better, you prefered to block me. As for protecting pages, you and I both know that the only reason you do so is to prevent others from setting the record straight. I have attempted to reason with you, yet you seem to be one of those hardened and heartless people who feel that because you are an administraor here that you can do whatever you wish. There is a term for such individuals who abuse the powers they are given on a website, they are refered to as a Cyber Nazi. I give you one last opportunity - should you brush aside the olive branch this time, you will leave me with no other alternative than to destroy you in any manner availible. --AdmiralYamakawa 11:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC) :I'm afraid I have to butt in here, as you requested in your email. If you feel that Mike has made some questionable decisions as an administrator then there are channels to go through. You've taken the first step by emailing other administrators and have asked them to look at the situation, to which two have done so, and have found that Mike has handled the situation well considering the flaming and, at points, downright sinister threats, which has been lodged against him. :Now if you feel you want to take this matter further to the people at Wikia, that's great. However, the way to go about this, is to not threaten people with "destruction, by any means possible." --The Doctor 11:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Making links Hi Admiral, how are ya'? Just wanted to be considerate and give you a bit of help editing articles -- which I'm glad to see you are starting to try, based on our earlier discussion. If you want to make a link, put two brackets around the term being linked -- for example, to make a link to the word "Soar", write it like this: Soar. There's some more code involved, but you can see all details at our manual of style. I know you must already be familiar with the manual of style since it was linked in the welcome message I left you at the top of this page -- it's right above the link to our Memory Beta:Policies and guidelines. Since you are so concerned with the consideration we give to new users by showing them the welcome message, I know you must be familiar with these documents by now, but I'm just reminding you of the links. Thanks for your interest in our wiki, and have a good afternoon! -- Captain MKB 18:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC) ::I know about the brackets. Considering that you forget to do things yourself, I do believe that I also am allowed an error from time to time. --AdmiralYamakawa 18:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC) :I don't see any reason for such a negative response, Admiral -- after all, you are a new user and I was just trying to be considerate and let you know how links are formed. :Since I'm in the middle of reading Final Frontier right now, I'll help out by continuing the work on the article I started this morning, and format any of your errors and omissions while I'm at it. We all make mistakes, after all. -- Captain MKB 18:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC) (moved from user talk:captainmike in the interest of keeping talk page conversations in one place) In addition, the names I added have no articles or entries at present, so until I am allowed to add such entries placing the names in brackets serves no purpose. AdmiralYamakawa 18:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC) :That's actually false, Admiral -- on a wiki we must write as many links as possible, that way we know where our most wanted articles are, and showcase them by marking them in a red color. Once someone writes those articles, all the links to them will already exist. Its a great system and if you stick to it you'll get a chance to see it working. -- Captain MKB 18:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC) After what I have witnessed you should be thankful I add anything. AdmiralYamakawa 19:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC) :You still haven't clarified "what you have witnessed" -- and this is becoming tiresome. If you aren't willing to work alongside me in this community, you should make a decision about how to approach it rather than approaching all discussions you involve yourselves in with veiled threats and vague announcements of disapproval. :Why join something you disapprove of so much? -- Captain MKB 19:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC) You talk of working alongside you, yet you actions hint that you prefer peiple work under you. It has been outlined several times what you have been doing, yet instead of working to eliminate them and improve yourself, you prefer to pretend they do not exist and attempt to silence those bringing them to light. Unless you are willing to cease the games and double standards, there can be no working together. --AdmiralYamakawa 20:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC) :All you've outlined is that Mike has protected a couple of pages that relate directly to administrative matters and don't affect standard pages and users. The only slight niggle you could have with Mike is when he made a comment about your spelling which, considering the abuse he was getting, is understandable if not forgivable. As for 8of5 and myself *ignoring* the problem, we all have lives outside the wiki and our efforts here are purely voluntary. It was your email that drew me back here to see what was happening, and I have done so and found that Mike hasn't used our absence to declare himself lord and master of the universe. If you don't wish to work with Mike fair enough, I'm sure 8of5 and myself would be willing to work with you and guide you through instead, but this flaming has to stop. Please :D --The Doctor 20:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC) From Captainmike's talkpage From 's talkpage: Depending upon what you consider vandalism, Mike, Your statement may either be true or false. Your past actions sem to show that you have a prior history of conducting yourself as if your positition permits you to bend and even break the rules at will. Anyone you seem to dislike invariably ends being labeled as something and banned, as you did with me when I dared to show you what you were doing wrong so that you might improve. Even now, you attempt to claim that this is the fault of other people, as if you think that this is some form of popularity contest. By continuing as you are, you harm not only your own reputation by that of this website as well. AdmiralYamakawa 11:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC) :Again, you're not siting any verifiable examples of a perceived problem, "Admiral." You haven't "shown" anything that Mike has done wrong. He and I have had our problems in the past, and neither one is the biggest fan of the other, but even I can see he's acted with great restraint in dealing with a recent string of personal attacks from yourself and others, as well as, yes, a few vandals. If you are going to persist in sowing dissent through the consternation-causing conflagration, make an attempt to prove your case, instead of throwing around broad - and inaccurate - generalizations, veiled threats, and empty rhetoric that sounds like the tantrums of a petulant child. --TimPendragon 20:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC) ....................................... So I am proven correct, and this wiki is dominated by selfish and evil individuals. I have showed each of you these things, and as usual you ignore them. I have tried reason and diplomacy, yet ones such as yourselfs tend to look down upon those who use such methods. Then you wonder why people come to your site and vandalize articles - either not understanding or not caring that people do so since you then use it as an excuse to be able to use your powers. The sad part is, eventually, you will anger someone who has the ability to "hack", and they will ultimately obliterate your site. What none of you seem to realize or even care about is that the abuse you suffer on people here can affect you elsewhere. AdmiralYamakawa 22:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC) :What do you think I'm ignoring? You say he's ignored policy and broken rules, and yet haven't pointed to a specific one. What has he done to injure you? Speak up, man. --TimPendragon 23:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC) ::I said this before an an anon's talk page. Insulting the person(s) with the power to ban/unban you will get you nowhere. That is simple logic. There is also the be nice to others and don't insult them over a simple and friendly Internet project. I admit Mike may come across a bit strong (nothing against you Mike, if you read this) sometimes, but he is always within the rules, and in this recent rash of problems has delt with it better than most people could.--Long Live the United Earth 00:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC) So everyone should look the other way? If that is the case then everyone should be allowed to do anything they want, rules or no rules. Of course, I trust that you realize what would happen as a result. AdmiralYamakawa 02:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC) ::And insulting people will get you where? It usually takes away from a person's argument when they launch personal attacks.--Long Live the United Earth 02:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC) :::And you are ''still dodging every question that has been posed to you, "Admiral." Tell us what exactly you believe Mike has done wrong, if you want us to consider your argument. If you are not willing to do so, then get over yourself and stop making a bloody nuisance. We are all willing to listen, but you have to show substance behind your claims if you wish to be taken seriously. --TimPendragon 04:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC) From 's talkpage: :You really do need to learn to pay attention Tim. They are only posted on at least four different pages - including this very talk page. Though I suppose I should not be at all surprised the you cannot see it, since that particular post is only ten inches long. AdmiralYamakawa 02:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC) ::And every one of those points has been sufficiently refuted, I should think. If those are your bones of contention, then now I am forced to ask you to provide your rationale for continuing your personal witch hunt against someone who has done you no wrong nor violated any official policy of this community. What do you believe that Mike did to you that ticks you off so much? --TimPendragon 04:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC) :::Oh, I remember now; this whole thing began with the Bradbury image, which did not meet this wiki's criteria, and you took offense to its deletion, expressing extreme umbrage when none was warranted. The more this goes on, the more it appears you are simply bitter, and refuse to admit you were mistaken. --TimPendragon 05:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Ban In the light of your recent comments on and talk pages, plus concerns expressed by several users, about your threatening and intimidating behavior, I regret that I have no choice but to ban you from the wiki for a period of 1 year. --The Doctor 12:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)